I thought everyone was going to try to make chips that run cooler and use less power, instead of continuing down the "faster = more power = more heat" path of doom.
Using diamond would make heat less of an issue, but unless it can also run with less energy, we're only saving by not having to run powerful fans every time we boot up.
If you're of the type that believes that gangs exist because the people in them have no better options in their life, then think of the implications that might have for people in an online gang o.o
The main thing a student needs to learn is the motivation. In a lot of the poorest countries in the world, kids don't have much or any education and yet unlike in most places Slashdot readers come from, they want to learn.
But I don't think there's anything critically wrong about students who don't want to learn IN SCHOOL. What it is, is that they have other pursuits, such as video games. Learning to master the game, perhaps if only for the purpose of ranking on a scoreboard such as Twin Galaxies( http://www.twingalaxies.com/ ), or maybe to become the best one around at a board game like Chess or Go, is more motivating to us than what our school systems can offer today.
People who achieve total concentration in learning the game also learn how to learn: at first haphazardly trying anything, then developing patterns, consulting with others to share ideas(research!), and of course trying to expose flaws in the system and exploiting them, which is sort of a mirror of how you see many math algorithms and equations developed as a workaround for problems of inconvienence.
As such, I would take this guy's advice seriously. A game concept can be applied to almost anything imaginable, and if integrated properly can draw on almost any academic subject(and not just the facts and figures). Games, by themselves, are very much "learning machines" - if the power were off our button presses would be random, but when it's on they achieve meaning and we strive to do them better.
More simply, you could say "it takes the universe, or more than the universe, to simulate the universe. So if we do manage it then we're a simulation. Otherwise it can't be proven."
This is really kind of an obvious logic carried through with some academic rigor. I came up with the idea on my own, too.
I find it strange how the last article I read about Trip Hawkins(which was in the newspaper) mentioned his passion for the game business, and I suppose that shows in how he was trying to prop it up with his own cash at the end. But did he really just do that bad a job managing it?
It stands to reason that if everything is unique, no pattern may be formed. But all our intellegence is based on pattern-recognition. Therefore, sequels and clones must always exist in the gaming world.
Sequels and clones, however, serve their own purpose. Once the original game serves up the "killer idea," others can come in to try to improve on it, and the market determines which of these will succeed(though the Darwinian aspects of this are offset by marketing campaigns, at least in the retail world - but the online one is set to eventually replace it anyway).
Sometimes concepts introduced by a clone are applicable outside of their original game context - things like score, high score, lives, levels, hit points, and combos are found through a wide range of games. More recently popularized, similar types of innovations are unlocks, more sophisticated/diverse ranking and rating systems than a single score measure, the usage of more body movement than just a joystick or gamepad and buttons, the exploration of music as a central focus of gameplay...
Innovation is not really a complicated process, at least with respect to game-making. It's just a matter of recognizing what will use the technology you have in mind to entertain someone, without restricting yourself to previous models.
A game concept I came up with just today: You own a car and can drive it around or get out and walk in an accurate-looking version of the real world, but with certain restrictions - a limited section of the world(like only California, or even much less) no fighting others, no entering buildings(for technical reasons) except the ones critical to the gameplay of driving in your car like auto shops or gas stations, and death results in magically being revived at a hospital ala GTA. Within the world, the player can use his car and some equipment to accomplish various missions, like take photos of landscapes/wildlife/cities, run cargo(perhaps even illegal cargo to add just a little criminal element), and investigate landmarks for something of an adventure aspect. Mostly, though, it's a shell so that the player can enjoy the graphics in a pleasing setting.
It's that or Ultimate Dance Kung Fu Gunfight, the hardware and specifics of which I'll leave to imagination(two hints: someone playing it should look like they're having a seizure, and the screen should be seizure-inducing with targets and arrows and a combo count at the same time amongst flashing lights)
Slashdot Mirror
I thought everyone was going to try to make chips that run cooler and use less power, instead of continuing down the "faster = more power = more heat" path of doom.
Using diamond would make heat less of an issue, but unless it can also run with less energy, we're only saving by not having to run powerful fans every time we boot up.
If you're of the type that believes that gangs exist because the people in them have no better options in their life, then think of the implications that might have for people in an online gang o.o
Is the Sims Online really THAT boring?
The main thing a student needs to learn is the motivation. In a lot of the poorest countries in the world, kids don't have much or any education and yet unlike in most places Slashdot readers come from, they want to learn.
But I don't think there's anything critically wrong about students who don't want to learn IN SCHOOL. What it is, is that they have other pursuits, such as video games. Learning to master the game, perhaps if only for the purpose of ranking on a scoreboard such as Twin Galaxies( http://www.twingalaxies.com/ ), or maybe to become the best one around at a board game like Chess or Go, is more motivating to us than what our school systems can offer today.
People who achieve total concentration in learning the game also learn how to learn: at first haphazardly trying anything, then developing patterns, consulting with others to share ideas(research!), and of course trying to expose flaws in the system and exploiting them, which is sort of a mirror of how you see many math algorithms and equations developed as a workaround for problems of inconvienence.
As such, I would take this guy's advice seriously. A game concept can be applied to almost anything imaginable, and if integrated properly can draw on almost any academic subject(and not just the facts and figures). Games, by themselves, are very much "learning machines" - if the power were off our button presses would be random, but when it's on they achieve meaning and we strive to do them better.
More simply, you could say "it takes the universe, or more than the universe, to simulate the universe. So if we do manage it then we're a simulation. Otherwise it can't be proven."
This is really kind of an obvious logic carried through with some academic rigor. I came up with the idea on my own, too.
I find it strange how the last article I read about Trip Hawkins(which was in the newspaper) mentioned his passion for the game business, and I suppose that shows in how he was trying to prop it up with his own cash at the end. But did he really just do that bad a job managing it?
Sequels and clones, however, serve their own purpose. Once the original game serves up the "killer idea," others can come in to try to improve on it, and the market determines which of these will succeed(though the Darwinian aspects of this are offset by marketing campaigns, at least in the retail world - but the online one is set to eventually replace it anyway).
Sometimes concepts introduced by a clone are applicable outside of their original game context - things like score, high score, lives, levels, hit points, and combos are found through a wide range of games. More recently popularized, similar types of innovations are unlocks, more sophisticated/diverse ranking and rating systems than a single score measure, the usage of more body movement than just a joystick or gamepad and buttons, the exploration of music as a central focus of gameplay...
Innovation is not really a complicated process, at least with respect to game-making. It's just a matter of recognizing what will use the technology you have in mind to entertain someone, without restricting yourself to previous models.
A game concept I came up with just today: You own a car and can drive it around or get out and walk in an accurate-looking version of the real world, but with certain restrictions - a limited section of the world(like only California, or even much less) no fighting others, no entering buildings(for technical reasons) except the ones critical to the gameplay of driving in your car like auto shops or gas stations, and death results in magically being revived at a hospital ala GTA. Within the world, the player can use his car and some equipment to accomplish various missions, like take photos of landscapes/wildlife/cities, run cargo(perhaps even illegal cargo to add just a little criminal element), and investigate landmarks for something of an adventure aspect. Mostly, though, it's a shell so that the player can enjoy the graphics in a pleasing setting.
It's that or Ultimate Dance Kung Fu Gunfight, the hardware and specifics of which I'll leave to imagination(two hints: someone playing it should look like they're having a seizure, and the screen should be seizure-inducing with targets and arrows and a combo count at the same time amongst flashing lights)